I would have liked to have had more time for this, but it seems after reading his response article that there is a semantic disconnect going on here. When I read statements such as this:
Larry's desire to focus on the transformative qualities of colonialism, however, is misplaced, not least because his rhetoric paints a rather disturbing picture of indigeneity by nearly dismissing the extensive levels of subjugation, extermination, cultural annihilation, etc. in exchange for a softer, if not sanitized, vision of indigenous interactions with colonists. His argument is akin to suggesting that we should focus more on the transformative aspects of a woman's interactions with her rich, but physically abusive, nearly-rapist husband.
I cannot help but wonder if Duke really read my piece carefully. Ignoring the rhetoric that might remind some unfavorably of say an Andrea Dworkin, this statement (and several others in that piece) is such an egregious misrepresentation of my actual stance (which is, namely, that I do not deny the worst excesses of 19th-20th century Colonialism, considering that was the first basic statement in my original post. However, casting the terms of discussion in such stark terms distorts a very complex series of interrelationships in which the colonizers and the colonized interacted with one another, interactions which affect a whole host of political, social, and economic issues today) that I am uncertain as to whether or not it is worth exploring this issue. Duke's application of late 20th century/early 21st century ethos to world-views that in the more ancient cases he mentions in this rebuttal distorts matters greatly. It is very problematic at the very least to discuss this with someone whose views seem to stray more toward an absolutist side. Matt Cheney's brief critiques of my original arguments, I should note, have led to some intriguing possibilities in regards to this prickly issue, which I might return to later, once I finish translating a short story.
Of course, the unexplored issue is whether or not "new Colonialism" equates with "colonization" in features, participants, execution, effects, etc. That still has not been addressed adequately to date, I suppose.